Religion What's your religion ?

I am a very curious person. That's also why I like polls so much.
There has been several threads related to religion on this forum. As we are very cosmopolitan, with members from Japan, Europe, America, Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, China, India and many other places, I am interested to know what people interested in Japan actually believe in.

I'll go a bit further than that and help people confused about their religious believes to decide in which category they fit.

For too many Westerners (and Japanese !) it is actually hard to say what they really believe in. Younger Europeans especially are rarely convinced Christians. Most should rather call themselves :

- deist : those who believe in the existence of a supreme being (God) that has created the universe but does not intervene in human affairs. People in thi category often come from Christian families, but do not believe in the bible or Christian religion. Deist think religion was made by humans and has no divine origin.

- agnostic : aren't sure that god exist and think humans have no way to prove its existence.

- atheist : refute the existence of god(s) by the way of logic or philosophical reasoning. They can have moral rules, but based philosophy, not religion. We could consider Buddhism as a form of moral atheism.

- not religious : don't care about religion, never think about it and live well without it.

The above work for people from any religious background, all around the world. Most Japanese are probably either not religious or animist. I don't think there are many true Buddhists nowadays.

- Animist : believe in the existence of souls in the nature, such as in trees, river, rocks... what Japanese call kami(sama).
Animist people don't believe in one god and strict religious rules. They are usually superstitious. There are animist everywhere in the world, not just in Japanese Shinto. Native Americans, some tribes of Africa, India and Indonesia are animists.

Don't confuse animism with polytheism :

- polytheists believe in several gods, usually a pantheon, with each god having a particular attribute (e.g. : god of sun, sea, sky, beauty, arts, love, goodluck, creation, music, etc.). Most polytheism are extinct, such as the Greco-Roman, Viking or Egyptian ones. The most famous remaining is Hinduism. Some forms of popular Buddhism have their gods too and can be considered as polytheism.

hehe shintou^^

whoops, i put "No Religion" but i meant to put "atheist"

Although i've been raised a Christian (or rather having the bible read to me at a Christian school), i can't say i believe in any form of religion.

I do hope there is something of an afterlife though, because i don't like the idea of mortality.

Frankly speaking, i'd rather see a global ban on religion, since it causes more problems then good. But that's a rather utopian thought. I can't expect other people to be as down to earth as i am.

I'm a very liberal Protestant and often call myself a heretic.

RotaryPower said:

whoops, i put "No Religion" but i meant to put "atheist"

Click to expand...

No worries, I've changed your vote to atheism.

I am an atheist and am glad you included Buddhism in with that, Maciamo.

I was raised around several different religions. It wasn't like I only knew one way and one way only when I was younger. I was exposed to many different beliefs growing up. I grew up around family members that were Southern Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, agnostic and atheist. Now, I have been exposed to even more with my husband being Buddhist/atheist and my new stepmother being a Jehovah's Witness!

I think my point is that I can have respect for everyone's beliefs as long as they aren't harming anyone else. If you use your beliefs in a positive way, no one should judge you--no matter what your religion or lack thereof, and you don't have to believe in a "supreme being" to be a good person.

Maciamo said:

I- agnostic : aren't sure that god exist and think humans have no way to prove its existence.

- atheist : refute the existence of god(s) by the way of logic or philosophical reasoning. They can have moral rules, but based philosophy, not religion. We could consider Buddhism as a form of moral atheism.

Click to expand...

Maybe someone could explain the reasoning here a little more. Having philosophically based moral rules is fine, but I don't think anyone, Christian or Buddhist or whatever, should say with complete assurance (and god as their witness ) that they can "prove" or "refute" the existence or God/gods by any objective standard or to the satisfaction of a skeptic or believer -- which of course isn't the point of religion in any case.

I think your definition of Buddhism casts too wide a net. For some sects you might be able to work with that atheist label via some fancy liturgical tricks, while others I have found rely as much on faith and deities for guidance as the rest of your field. The poll breaks Christianity down into sections, and it could do the same with Buddhism (Theravada and Mahayana).

Mandylion said:

I think your definition of Buddhism casts too wide a net. For some sects you might be able to work with that atheist label via some fancy liturgical tricks, while others I have found rely as much on faith and deities for guidance as the rest of your field. The poll breaks Christianity down into sections, and it could do the same with Buddhism (Theravada and Mahayana).

Click to expand...

Yes of course. I could also have divided Muslim between Shiite, and Sunni , added Zoroastrian, Janinism, Sikhism, Taoism (though that's not more a religion than Buddhism), etc. The point is, I know that most members of this forum aren't going to be Jainist, Sikh or even know the difference between Mahayana and Hirayana Buddhism (even if they are Japanese). That's why I have said earlier that Buddhist could be either atheists or polytheists. I didn't include a polytheist category because there was already Hinduism, from which most Budhist gods are related. I don't expect many people to be"polytheist Buddhist" on this forum, because most of them are masses wityh little real knowledge of Buddhism, but if there are, they can choose "others" and say so.

What did you choose by the way ?

Re: Re: What's your religion ?

Elizabeth said:

Maybe someone could explain the reasoning here a little more. Having philosophically based moral rules is fine, but I don't think anyone, Christian or Buddhist or whatever, should say with complete assurance (and god as their witness ) that they can "prove" or "refute" the existence or God/gods by any objective standard or to the satisfaction of a skeptic or believer -- which of course isn't the point of religion in any case.

Click to expand...

Why are you saying that Christians should refute the existence of god ? As for Budhists, if they have gods, they are more related to the idea of "saint" or "spirit" than the notion of a supreme god like Christians. Buddha never consider himself a god or spoke of any god. True Buddhist are atheist. Some fancy popular gods were created by the masses who couldn't understand Buddhism and needed something to worship, which is fundamentally against the Buddha's ideas.

But, if you need an example, I can tell you that I can refute the existence of a creator of the universe, simply by logical arguments. The unviverse being everything that exist by defintion, if a supreme being (god) had to create it, it would have to be outside the universe, and therefore not exist. This is also based on the belief that the universe is infinite in space and time. You could argue that I can't prove it, but after all atheism is only a form of belief like any other. If I think the universe is infinite in time and space and no other "dimension" exist outside it, and therefore cannot accept the existence of a creator, that's my right. I also don't believe in the existence of a non-material soul, because everything in the universe is matter or energy (both being basically the same thing). I've read enough books on neurosciences to be convinced that every form of knowledge or emotion can be explained by biochemistry.

Christians usually represent or imagine God as a man. I don't know what can be more egocentric than imagining what they supposed created the universe as a member of their species, then a sexual being (God is male for most Christians !), that has feelings like animals and humans. So is this God just a life being after all ? Then it can die ? It's just made up a matter and energy like us ? Then it's part of the universe ? It is omniscient, so it possess knowledge. Is it stored in neurons as well ? r is it like a computer ? The Matrix ?

I don't need to believe in a life after death, because I know, like Buddhists, that our mind and body is matter and part of the universe and is thus eternal. When somebody dies, it's just the brain and nerves cells that die, but as cells can be recreated in laboratory or naturally, there is nothing to worry about.

These are my believes and they are as respectable as any others, especially that I didn't find the ideas wairing for me in a book, but I formed my own philosophy based on my learnings, experience, needs and personality. I also don't want to live with the same dated believes as my forefathers have done for about 2000 years. It's important to live with one's time and integrate the latest scientific knowledge to update once vision of life.

As a history buff, I've realised young enough that monotheist religions have often been the cause of the world worst atrocities.
I am not fundamentally anti-religious, but monotheisms are certainly not good for the world order. I am not naive enough to believe in spirits of nature or pantheons of "human gods" that explains how nature works. So I guess atheism is the most suitable belief for me. I used to be deist from a very young age until about 17 years old, then I thought a lot about the notion of infinte and the origin of religion.

What does it take to make a Christian ?

I suppose that to be considered as Christian, one must at least believe in the Bible and the Holy Trinity. That is :

- believe that God made the world in 7 days
- Adam and Eve were made by God and are the first human on earth, who look like us today (by the way, what was their skin colour and language ?)
- believe that the Sun goes round the Earth, and the Earth is the center of the universe
- believe that God is a man (he is called the "father", not the "mother")
- believe in miracles
- believe that Jesus was human and God
...

Those who don't believe even one of these things are not real Christians. I find it a bit easy to adapt the Bible and change the doctrine everytime science proves it to be wrong. During the first 1500 years of Christianity, every Christian believed firmly in thee things (other were burnt alive). You cannot change the most fundamental believes of a religion without destroying it.

May I ask, who among those who call themselves Christian believe in all of the above ?

Re: Re: Re: What's your religion ?

Maciamo said:

But, if you need an example, I can tell you that I can refute the existence of a creator of the universe, simply by logical arguments. The unviverse being everything that exist by defintion, if a supreme being (god) had to create it, it would have to be outside the universe, and therefore not exist. This is also based on the belief that the universe is infinite in space and time. You could argue that I can't prove it, but after all atheism is only a form of belief like any other. If I think the universe is infinite in time and space and no other "dimension" exist outside it, and therefore cannot accept the existence of a creator, that's my right. I also don't believe in the existence of a non-material soul, because everything in the universe is matter or energy (both being basically the same thing). I've read enough books on neurosciences to be convinced that every form of knowledge or emotion can be explained by biochemistry.

Click to expand...

OK, thanks--this is helpful. I think there are for sure still some very potent counterarguments, though. For instance, given the infinitesiminally small probability of our universe to have happened by chance and to have the exact physics for supporting life/planets/galaxies, etc, without a First Cause wouldn't an aetheist explanation require huge numbers of other universes to also theoretically exist/have existed along with ours?

Also, biochemistry/matter/energy may explain emotional pathways and regions in the brain since that is an evolutionary part of our makeup and can deal with the processes of learning and memory, etc, but there is still the same problem with consciousness, creativity, original thinking being in a 'mind' that is more than the sum of its parts, even operating in the physical constraints of a brain, as with a "first cause" outside the universe.

As far as dimensions, hasn't there been put forth the idea among cosmologists of dimensions of space and time outside the four in our own universe. Therefore god/Gods could be extradimensional, but not necessarily non-existent. Since the Bible is clear that God exists both within our universe and outside of it. It also probably depends on your interpretation of the mathematics of infinite causes, of which I understand very little -- whether God would also have required a force or mover to come into being.

Anyway, I'm sure there are more refutations -- hopefully someone with more understanding in these areas can add to.
:bow:

Elizabeth said:

For instance, given the infinitesiminally small probability of our universe to have happened by chance and to have the exact physics for supporting life/planets/galaxies, etc, without a First Cause wouldn't an aetheist explanation require huge numbers of other universes to also theoretically exist/have existed along with ours?

Click to expand...

Why think of multiple universe. This is unthinkable for me. There might be as many galaxies as you want, but The Uninerse is the total of everything - and if there is something beyond, in another dimension, it's still part of it. You think "finite", try to think "infinite". That isn't easy for the finite human brain, but some maths may help...

but there is still the same problem with consciousness, creativity, original thinking being in a 'mind' that is more than the sum of its parts, even operating in the physical constraints of a brain, as with a "first cause" outside the universe.

Click to expand...

I don't know what's your knowledge of neurosciences, but I can affirm that even consciousness and creativity can be explained scientifically. There are plenty of books on this subject. Try reading thos of Antonio Damasio at first. He is head of the departement of Neurology at the University of Iowa and one of the most prominent neuroscientist at present.

As far as dimensions, hasn't there been put forth the idea among cosmologists of dimensions of space and time outside the four in our own universe. Therefore god/Gods could be extradimensional, but not necessarily non-existent. Since the Bible is clear that God exists both within our universe and outside of it. It also probably depends on your interpretation of the mathematics of infinite causes, of which I understand very little -- whether God would also have required a force or mover to come into being.

Click to expand...

Some scientists have fatuous ideas. Besides, most scientists don't make good philosophers. At least Damasio can demonstrate everything he puts forward.
The most sensible reason why there should be ne creator is that a beginning of The Universe is not envisageable. Even if you argue it is inside a bigger whole, like a dimension inside another, it's circular thinking as what is outside, what existed before the "creation" (whatever you call it) still is the Universe. Little minds can only conceive the Big Bang as the start. Thousands of renowned scientists believed it was THE beginning... till it has been proved wrong since there were several distinct big bangs as we now know. These "Big Bang believers" were most certainly Christians or influenced by the idea of Creation.

As long as you concentrate on a part of the universe, you'll always see developments that look like a beginning : Big Bang, creation of the solar system, the earth, life on earth, the first humans... You can always try to look further and further, bigger and bigger, but as you are reaching for the infinite, you'll never see the big picture, because there isn't one. It's beyond human instinct of limits for everything, and not seizable for our infinitesimal size. That kind of philosophy is not given to anybody, and it requires a bit of belief for things beyond the reach of human understanding.

It is actually an egocentric need to yearn for life after death, an immortal soul and a providential God. It fills a huge fear of emptiness in our mind that make us feel better. Christians sometimes laugh at Muslim terrorists (in Israel, 9/11...) that believe that they'll be welcomed by virgins in paradise for their heroic acts. Who wouldn't smile at the brave Ancient Gemanic warriors who believed that dying in combat earned them a place in Wahala. But I feel the same about Christian who believe in heaven next to God (that they still believe looks like a man), maybe with angels and clouds... So naive. But lots of people need to believe to avoid sinking into depression and feeling their life is pointless.

In the absolute, life is pointless. However, from a human viewpoint, we should try to lead a happy life and make humanity prosper (and protect our environment for our future well-being). That is how I see it, but that's just my ethics.

Atheist.

Though my background is Roman Catholic. I even did the first communion (don't know the word in english but I'll bet in a direct translation). Nowadays I think I have almost an aversion to the Catholic Church.
I think it started when I was four years old and I was held upside down above a sink filled with holy water and baptized without having a say in the matter. Really. This isn't a joke.
My parents didn't baptized me shortly after birth because they wanted it to be my choice, but later on, thanks to peer pressure, they had a change of hearts and decided to save my soul.

To cut a long story short, my passion has always been history, past and present, and as I got older and wiser, I got disapointed with religion as whole due to the bad examples of past ...and present.

How many in here are Jedi?

Maciamo said:

What does it take to make a Christian ?

I suppose that to be considered as Christian, one must at least believe in the Bible and the Holy Trinity. That is :

- believe that God made the world in 7 days
- Adam and Eve were made by God and are the first human on earth, who look like us today (by the way, what was their skin colour and language ?)
- believe that the Sun goes round the Earth, and the Earth is the center of the universe
- believe that God is a man (he is called the "father", not the "mother")
- believe in miracles
- believe that Jesus was human and God
...

Those who don't believe even one of these things are not real Christians. I find it a bit easy to adapt the Bible and change the doctrine everytime science proves it to be wrong. During the first 1500 years of Christianity, every Christian believed firmly in thee things (other were burnt alive). You cannot change the most fundamental believes of a religion without destroying it.

May I ask, who among those who call themselves Christian believe in all of the above ?

Click to expand...

That's an extremely narrow and rigid view of Christianity, as well as being fundamentalist-- if not downright old catholic. I consider myself a Christian because I try to follow the teachings of Jesus, not because I do or don't believe in the about statements. In fact, the denomination I was brought up in taught me that it's what you do that's important, not the details of belief. You also appear to paint all Christians with the same brush-- and that's a major error. There are as many beliefs as colors of the rainbow, or sands on the shore and they span from pure fundamentalism to extreme liberalism (for example, the Unitarians don't believe in the Trinity, yet they are still considered Christians)

Haivart said:

That's an extremely narrow and rigid view of Christianity, as well as being fundamentalist-- if not downright old catholic. I consider myself a Christian because I try to follow the teachings of Jesus, not because I do or don't believe in the about statements. In fact, the denomination I was brought up in taught me that it's what you do that's important, not the details of belief. You also appear to paint all Christians with the same brush-- and that's a major error. There are as many beliefs as colors of the rainbow, or sands on the shore and they span from pure fundamentalism to extreme liberalism (for example, the Unitarians don't believe in the Trinity, yet they are still considered Christians)

Click to expand...

Hehe, that's what I thought, even people who consider themselves Christians can't accept these basics that were never denied or doubted till the Renaissance, but especially since the 20th century.

So can you give me a list of common beliefs between all kinds of Christians (that aren't exactly the same as Jewish and Muslim beliefs, such as a creator and judging god, the 10 commandments, etc.).

I thnk it would be fairer to say that lots of modern or liberal Christians (i.e. not fundamentalists) are deist that take what they like in Jesus' teachings. Am I wrong ?

Re: Re: Re: What's your religion ?

Maciamo said:

As for Budhists, if they have gods, they are more related to the idea of "saint" or "spirit" than the notion of a supreme god like Christians. Buddha never consider himself a god or spoke of any god. True Buddhist are atheist. Some fancy popular gods were created by the masses who couldn't understand Buddhism and needed something to worship, which is fundamentally against the Buddha's ideas.[/B

Click to expand...

Aside from the above painting all Buddhists one color, with a religion as old and multifaceted as Buddhism we could run around in circles trying to pin labels on Buddhism. Just because Buddhist gods are not exact copies of the Judeo-Christian structure alone doesn't make Buddhism atheistic.

If you are talking about the Theravadan tradition, the above quote is just about spot on. To them Buddha was an extraordinary man, but just a man. He can no longer be reached by prayer or faith since he, quite simply, died.

Mahayanans will argue the opposite and add extra things to boot. You can implore the Buddha for salvation, and due to ideas concerning oneness, bodhisattvas, you, and even I can be seen to be the Buddha with the big B.

More Mahayana doctrine will make our picture even more murky. To remain effective in a discussion we would need to make further delimitations between, Indian, Chinese, and Japanese Mahayana sects. If people want we can start a new thread to go over it all.

Buddha did speak of the gods. He did not deny their existence, merely downplayed their importance in early Indian cosmology. He said that since gods cannot get you to out of samsara (cycle of death and rebirth), you shouldn?ft rely on them for salvation. He did not say you had to atheistically deny their existence. You will find many sects that explain why Buddha did not speak of what happens after death, again Mahayana,

Gods played an important role in the lives of Buddhist lay followers, and continue to do so. Since many, mainly Theravadas, feel that only monks, can escape rebirth, the lay folk still venerate and employ gods for earthly aid. Often times Therevadan monks willl preside at festivals or spirit channeling. Indeed for Mahayana followers, absolute faith in certain bodhisattvas, which effectively behave like gods in many, many resects, or even passages of scripture are the only way to escape reincarnation (i.e. have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ?). There very much is an afterlife of sorts and the heavens are filled with beings that are at once single and uncountable. Dainichi springs to mind, since we are on a Japan forum.

Here comes the old argument of doctrine versus practice. As much as we would like to say Buddhism is atheist in orientation because the historical Buddha downplayed the importance of gods, we cannot ignore the practices that began after his death or call them unimportant. Historical Buddhism being atheistic? Perhaps. Contemporary Buddhism as it is today? Hardly. I would even argue that you couldn?ft call the added on Buddhist practices superfluous or un-Buddhist. We are not in the position to deny entire traditions their spiritual validity because practice does not mesh with doctrine. Such changes have happened with all religions. This doesn?ft make them less Buddhist, less Jewish, or less Christian. If you ignore practice and what it means, you are only looking at half the picture from the proverbial ivory tower.

The road and how you travel it are not important; it is that you get to the right destination. This is the basic nature of upaya, or skill-in-means.

In short, this is mainly a lengthy discourse on why I feel Buddhism is not a clear fit with this survey?fs atheistic label and may sway results.

an odd mix of things. i like the tao. ive read a japanese buddist bible so to speak and it seemed very very strict. it was from a hotel written in english and japanese. ive also read a hefty portion of the king james version of the bible, it seems to me like a really long novel that by some 'miracle' got turned into a religion. its pretty far-fetched if you really think about it. i believe dying is ridding yourself of a physical shell. i think many religions came about becasuse people need to have rules. alot teach and practice the same 'golden rule', "(dont) do to others what you would (not) want them do to you." people know whats right and wrong, but unless its written down somewhere...